Start immediate investigation of Barack Obama's use of forged IDs and a CT SSN which was never assigned to him according to e-verify -- 19,362 Letters and Emails Sent So Far.

On April 15, 2010 Obama posted his 2009 tax returns on line. He forgot to flatten the PDF file and his full unredacted Social Security number xxx-xx-4425 became known to the public.

This number immediately raised suspicions of Attorney Orly Taitz, as it started with 042, a digit combination which was assigned to the state of CT and Obama was never a resident of CT. E-verify and SSNVS showed that this number used by Barack Obama was never assigned to him.

We have an individual sitting in the WH as the US president and Commander-in-Chief, in control of our nuclear arsenal, while using a stolen/fraudulently obtained Social Security number from a state where he never resided.

Additionally, former Chief Investigator of the special investigations unit of the U.S. Coast Guard Jeffrey Stephan Coffman prepared a sworn affidavit for Attorney Orly Taitz showing that Obama's alleged application for the Selective Service is a forgery. According to 5 USC § 3328.one is forbidden from holding a position in the executive branch if he did not register for the Selective Service.

Obama never legally registered for the selective service, as his application is a forgery, as such he is forbidden to work as a President in the White House or as a janitor in the White House. According to Obama's school registration in Indonesia he is a citizen of Indonesia.

According to his mother's passport records his legal last name is Soebarkah.

According to sworn affidavits of the Sheriff of Maricopa county, AZ and multiple experts Obama's alleged birth certificate is a computer generated forgery.

Attorney Orly Taitz and her supporters, law abiding U.S. citizens, demand that the U.S. Congress do not engage in treason and do not cover up Obama's usurpation of the U.S. Presidency with forged IDs and a fraudulently obtained SSN.

We demand immediate investigation of Obama's usurpation of the U.S. Presidency to be conducted in the both houses of the U.S. Congress.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Judge Roberts to consider a case concerning the use of a false SS# by Obama on Feb 15th, 2013.

It is real! http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a606.htm

Respectfully seeking your support to discover the truth. Congress needs to act.

I’ve ‘petitioned’ my congress critter, the two dead-head ‘sinators’ and the subPreme Court, and not one of all of them has even bothered to acknowledge my petitioning. The democrips, black-robed oligarchs, and republicants want this lying sonofabitch, Canadian born, fraud in the White Hut while they end the Republic.

A master file, the NUMIDENT File, is created each time the SSA assigns an SSN to an applicant. The NUMIDENT File contains information about the numberholder; such as, name, date of birth, place of birth, gender, parents’ names and citizenship status. If there is a change in status; for example, a non-citizen naturalizes as a U.S. citizen, the numberholder must notify the SSA or the NUMIDENT File will not reflect the change in status. Most qualified applicants are issued one SSN. In rare circumstances, the SSA will assign more than one SSN to a numberholder.

Ask long time 0bama staffer Alex Okrent! Oh wait.. He died (suddenly).. At age 29.. Inconclusive autopsy although the media said ‘heart attack’ even before autopsy just like they said with Breitbart even before his autopsy..

I was reviewing the complaint / original petition of Berg vs. Obama and one thing stood out big to me that makes me wonder why? It says Obama traveled YO Pakistan on his Indonesian passport when he was 20. It’s on page 9. Given the context of his religious beliefs and what we are learning about as time oes on it begs the question, why?

I was reviewing the complaint / original petition of Berg vs. Obama and one thing stood out big time to me that makes me wonder why? It says Obama traveled toPakistan on his Indonesian passport when he was 20. It’s on page 9. Given the context of his religious beliefs and what we are learning about as time oes on it begs the question, why?

“Given the context of his religious beliefs and what we are learning about as time oes on it begs the question, why?”

Obama was on a schlorship from East-West Connections, an institute financed by the U.S. State Department, in 1980-1981. The program required a foreign national participate to return to their home country after a course of study in the U.S. on U.S. the taxpayers dime.

The intent of the program is to promote a cultural exchange between foreign nationals and the U.S. When the student returns to their home country, the U.S. State Department hopes the former student will share positive experiences with other citizens in their country to enhance the image of the U.S.

Some foreign nationals participating in the program come from countrys where it is impossible for the student to return without a risk of harm coming to them. Obama was one of these foreign nationals.

Obama was at risk and could not return to Indonesia to live for two years to promote the advantages and opportunities America has to offer. So, an alternative was offered. Obama was to travel to Pakistan on his Indonesian passport and promote the advantages and opportunities offered by the U.S. to friendly foreign nationals.

Obama had been in the U.S. as a foreign national since 1971. Consequently, he had to travel to Indonesia before Pakistan to renew his Indonesian passport. He’s not doing this on his own. He has CIA and Dept of State personnel paving the way for him. They’re not doing it because they like Obama. It’s being done to promote the U.S. in Pakistan and using Obama as a spokesmen.

> Consequently, he had to travel to Indonesia before Pakistan to renew his Indonesian passport. Hes not doing this on his own. He has CIA and Dept of State personnel paving the way for him. Theyre not doing it because they like Obama.

Isn’t that a coincidence considering is grandfather worked for the CIA and his daughter and her husband in Indonesia (Sotero) were also suspected of have worked for the CIA during the time period that BO visited Pakistan. Hmmm...

John Hancock signed his name large so that there was no mistaking who he was and where he stood. Do you think the King cared about any petitions sent by the colonies? The petition is to make your grievances known.

I see many frustrated people trying to identify the real domestic enemies in America.

I think all those that supported Obamas forged past and continue to bar access or to obstruct justice are in themselves identifying their true loyalty to the nation.

Obama is arming his security forces to make sure these people are well protected. Just like members of the Kremlin were in decades past.

Where will these people be 5, 10 or 20 years from now? Still holding the same office and position of power? Or will they take the gold and flee? There is no getting around it the Obama regime is very very powerful, its cancerous roots run very deep, removing cancer from a body will make the patient very sick.

But I see most of America just taking more and more painkillers and are ignoring the symptoms of a terminal disease.

17
posted on 01/29/2013 4:59:45 AM PST
by Eye of Unk
(AR2 2013 is the American Revolution part 2 of 2013)

In light of the below text, I never could understand why this hasn’t been used as an explanation as to why he had a SS number from CT if he never lived there. This is from the SS website.

Additionally, this is the first time I’ve seen a partial number issued to the bum or at least used by him and exactly how it was revealed to be the number he uses. Why xxxx out portions of the number if it’s not his real number? If it’s not his real number, why not disclose the whole thing?

“”Generally, area numbers were assigned in ascending order beginning in the northeast and then moving westward. For the most part, people on the east coast have the lowest area numbers and those on the west coast have the highest area numbers. However, area numbers did not always reflect the worker’s residence. During the initial registration in 1936 and 1937, businesses with branches throughout the country had employees return their SS-5 Application for Account Number to their national headquarters, so these SSNs carried the area number where the headquarters were located. As a result, the area numbers assigned to big cities, such as New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago, were used for workers in many other parts of the country (McKinley and Frase 1970, 373). Also, a worker could apply in person for a card in any Social Security office, and the area number would reflect that office’s location, regardless of the worker’s residence.

Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, MD, the area number has been assigned based on the ZIP code of the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant’s mailing address may not be the same as the place of residence.””

Sven’s post:
“Obama was on a schlorship from East-West Connections,an institute financed by the U.S. State Department,in 1980-1981. The program required a foreign national participate to return to their home country after a course of study in the U.S. on U.S. the taxpayers dime.

The intent of the program is to promote a cultural exchange between foreign nationals and the U.S. When the student returns to their home country,the U.S. State Department hopes the former student will share positive experiences with other citizens in their country to enhance the image of the U.S.

Some foreign nationals participating in the program come from countrys where it is impossible for the student to return without a risk of harm coming to them. Obama was one of these foreign nationals.

Obama was at risk and could not return to Indonesia to live for two years to promote the advantages and opportunities America has to offer. So,an alternative was offered. Obama was to travel to Pakistan on his Indonesian passport and promote the advantages and opportunities offered by the U.S. to friendly foreign nationals.

Obama had been in the U.S. as a foreign national since 1971. Consequently,he had to travel to Indonesia before Pakistan to renew his Indonesian passport. Hes not doing this on his own. He has CIA and Dept of State personnel paving the way for him. Theyre not doing it because they like Obama. Its being done to promote the U.S. in Pakistan and using Obama as a spokesmen.”

One additional piece of information we can discern from Thomas L. Wood's NUMIDENT File is that the was adopted after placement in a foster care program. At the bottom, of the page is mother's name (MN) is Mrs. Willin. It it not uncommon for children in foster care and adoptees to have multiple SSNs.

You should bookmark http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com to keep abreast of updates and new information. I just updated the Deconstructing Thomas Wood’s NUMIDENT File post and will continue to post new information, as well as update posts, as the information becomes available.

Sven, you've posted these seemingly exact biographical notes on Obama for over 4 years now. They are well written, believable and novel, yet without any documentation or reference that would buttress your comments.

Most on this forum agree that we are at genuine risk for keeping our constitutional republic. So, either you are a fiction writer of Tom Clancy caliber or you have (access to) the goods. Isn't it time to show us all more than the lacy fringe of your silk slip?

Ive petitioned my congress critter, the two dead-head sinators and the subPreme Court, and not one of all of them has even bothered to acknowledge my petitioning. The democrips, black-robed oligarchs, and republicants want this lying sonofabitch, Canadian born, fraud in the White Hut while they end the Republic.

Same here. There is only going to be one way to settle this abomination. "Sic Semper Tyrannis".

25
posted on 01/29/2013 11:34:34 AM PST
by Don Corleone
("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")

Newington  Thomas Louis Wood, 18, of 25 Glenview Dr., died Tuesday at Windham Community Memorial Hospital in Willimantic.
Born in New Britain, he was a lifelong resident of Newington.
Survivors include his parents, Mr. & Mrs. Louis Wood, two sisters, Mrs Sherry Adams of Chippenhook, VT., and De Linda Wood of Wallingford, VT.; and his maternal grandmother, Mrs. Ann Keicher of Newington.
Funeral services will be held tomorrow at 9:30 a. m. at the Newington Memorial Funeral Home, 20 Bonair Ave., and at 10 at the Church of the Holy Spirit. Burial will be in West Meadow Cemetery.
There are no calling hours.
Memorial gifts may be made to the Hartford Regional Center,, 71 Mountain Rd.

"It is a felony to solicit or conspire to illegally obtain documentation protected and secured in a U.S. Federal Government facility. Consequently, Ill ignore your request and remind everyone Obama will be determined ineligible for the Office of POTUS once his Certificate of Naturalization is legally obtained."

So there you have it folks. Everyone here knows full well there isn't a court in the land that will grant *anyone* access to Barry's records of any kind, let alone an alleged Certificate of Naturalization. And even if Sven has seen such a document, he's already indicated he wouldn't leak it because to do so is a felony.

So round and round we go. The issue of the alleged Certificate of Naturalization is a dead end as far as exposing him while in office because no court will order it's release and if it hasn't been leaked by now, there's no reason to pin your hopes on it ever being leaked.

27
posted on 01/29/2013 1:02:50 PM PST
by rxsid
(HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))

I don't recall anyone issuing subpoena for a CLN or Obama's Certificate of Naturalization. For that matter, it's Obama's Certificate of Naturalization that automatically disqualifies him from the Presidency. Forged IDs, a fake Selective Service registration and a fake SSN are an important part of the ineligibilty equation, but they aren't automatic disqualifiers.

It's unfortunate so many have convinced a few only certified and corroborated evidence must be presented before a complaint can be filed and heard. As I understand it, a complaint with allegations is filed with the Court and the defendents are noticed. The complaint will offer support for the allegations by citing laws, regulations and legal precedent which supports the theory the plaintiff(s) has(have) suffered an injury due to the actions of the defendant(s). And finally, the complaint must propose a theory the Court has jurisdiction.

If the complaint survives a motion to dismiss, motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the defendent(s) must file an answer or suffer a default judgement. At this point, subpoenas can be issued. You can waste time auditing HDOH vital records, or his SS-5 and his selective service files, but his Certificate of Naturalization is the disqualifier.

The only time a case on Obama's eligibility went to trial was the administrative hearing in Georgia and Orly proposed to adjudicate the case with her experts and their theories after the Court clearly put the burden of proof on Obama. When Orly mentioned Obama's Indonesian citizenship, the Judge cut her off as presenting something irrelevant.

And here we are. The burden is on Obama to waive his Privacy Rights to expose his immigration record with his Certificate of Naturalization and FReepers are demanding I expose Obama's ineligibilty documents even though it is against the law to do so. And you're right, it is against the law to encourage, conspire or demand others break the law for the good of the cause.

The only time a case on Obama's eligibility went to trial was the administrative hearing in Georgia and Orly proposed to adjudicate the case with her experts and their theories after the Court clearly put the burden of proof on Obama.

That court did NOT put any burden of proof on Obama. It certainly refused a motion to quash Orly's subpoena's, but no burden of proof was ever put on Obama. The court assumed that burden on his behalf by saying it "considered" that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Id risk a minor felony conviction for releasing personal information if it would prove The Won is not an NBC.

In Hawaii, under the Uniform Information Practices Act, Obama's birth records could be disclosed to the public under "good faith" and persons are EXEMPT for such disclosures there, meaning ANYONE in the DOH could disclose any and all records on file for Obama. Of course, they won't do this because no one dares stand against "The Won."

Under Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 538 S.E.2d 430 (2000), the burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office.”

from Obamaconspiracy.org

In the cited case, Wells challenged the candidacy of Haynes after Haynes attested he was eligible. The burden of proof shifted to Haynes because he swore he was eligible and could prove it if he was challenged on the issue.

Haynes was challenged by Wells and the burden of proof shifted to Haynes.

It’s very similar to Obama’s OLFBC where Obama’s mother, delivery doctor and hospital administrator attested to the registrar of HDOH the information on the vital record presented to the registrar was true and they could prove it if they were challenged on the issue.

The registrar of HDOH “ACCEPTED” the attestation on Aug 4, 1961. Later, BHO Sr. challenged the Soetoro adoption in Hawaii Family Court and Obama’s mother testified BHO Sr. was not the father in order to preserve the Soetoro adoption. The Court ruled BHO Sr. was the father, the Soetoro adoption was annulled, Barry Soetoro’s legal name will now be Barack Hussein Obama II and ordered the HDOH registrar to file a vital statistic record backdated with a “DATE FILED Aug 4, 1961.”

Generally, when an adoption is annulled, the Court orders OLFBC unsealed from the archives and re-filed as the vital record for the child. The Adoption vital record is sealed and archived.

Since Obama’s mother refused to support her 1961 attestation, the Court order the Soetoro vital record sealed and archived with the OLFBC and a new vital record created to be filed with a date of Aug 4, 1961.

Under Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 538 S.E.2d 430 (2000), the burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office.

Obama wasn't involved in O'Brien v. Gross. Your earlier comment was that the court put the burden of proof on Obama, but this isn't the case. What happened is that Orly tried to use this citation to put the burden of proof on Obama. The rest of your post is irrelevant. The actual decision in Georgia was not based on putting ANY burden of proof on Obama, as I already noted.

Judge Malihi quoted Haynes v. Wells in the O’Brien v. Gross. I mentioned it to demonstrate Judge Malihi’s philosophy on a candidate/respondent duty to prove eligibility when a challenge is properly made to his/her eligibility for the office. Haynes v. Wells is quoted in many candidate eligibility cases by various Judges. It is a standard.

Orly cited O’Brien v. Gross in a letter to the GA SoS as an appeal to overturn Judge Malihi and in an appeal to GA Superior Court. She should have cited the O’Brien v. Gross in a Motion for Summary Judgement to Judge Malihi and have Obama declared ineligible for GA ballot placement.

You can’t admit it, but you’re wrong. Obama, through an authorized agent, attested he was eligible for the office of POTUS. The standard is for the candidate to appear and prove their eligibility when properly challenged. Judge Malihi ruled Obama had been properly challenged and ordered him to appear to prove eligibility and give the plaintiffs an opportunity to impeach his evidence and testimony.

Specifically, Obama’s COLB is dated Aug 4, 1961. Indonesia, a sovereign state, does not recognize Obama’s rights to privacy. Consequently, St. Francis of Assisi, Djakarta, Indonesia, provided Obama’s school record to an AP photographer. The AP photographer published Obama’s record which indicated his legal name and nationality on Jan 1, 1968 was Barry Soetoro, Indonesian. Orly’s clients were entitled to have Obama answer and be cross-examined about his post-1961 biography.

Yes, and how does O'Brien v. Gross have anything specifically to do with Obama?? Start there. I don't want a game of connect-the-dots-that-aren't-really-connected but a direct quote by Judge Malihi himself saying that Obama had the burden of proof.

Orly cited OBrien v. Gross in a letter to the GA SoS as an appeal to overturn Judge Malihi and in an appeal to GA Superior Court.

Yes, I've already talked about this when I said: "What happened is that Orly tried to use this citation to put the burden of proof on Obama."

She should have cited the OBrien v. Gross in a Motion for Summary Judgement to Judge Malihi and have Obama declared ineligible for GA ballot placement.

Thanks for proving my point when I said: "The actual decision in Georgia was not based on putting ANY burden of proof on Obama, as I already noted." If she "should have" cited that quote, then you're admitting that she did NOT put any burden of proof on Obama in the actual GA ballot decision.

“The only time a case on Obama’s eligibility went to trial was the administrative hearing in Georgia and Orly proposed to adjudicate the case with her experts and their theories after the Court clearly put the burden of proof on Obama.”

You’re demanding proof of a written order by Judge Malihi stating the burden of proof was on the candidate, Obama, after the Court denied the candidate’s motion to quash subpoena.

I have reviewed the APA and it’s associated case history concerning ballot challenges. It’s clear to anyone who has done the research a candidate assumes the burden of proof after signing an attestation they are qualified for and can prove they are qualified for the office they are seeking. You incorrectly interpreted my statement concerning the Court putting the burden of proof on Obama to mean Malihi wrote an order for it. In fact, it is a standard for the challenged candidate to prove eligibility after the GA Supreme Court ruled in the Haynes v. Wells case.

I tried to explain this to you by citing Malihi’s quote in O’Brien v. Gross concerning a ballot challenge and then you demand I explain why this has anything to do with Obama. Go back to the original statement. Orly chose to adjudicate the case after the Court put the burden of proof was on Obama. The Court has put the burden of proof on the challenged candidate in a ballot challenge. The case history of Haynes v. Wells isn’t waived because Malihi didn’t specifically cite it in an order. Plaintiffs waived it after plaintiffs rejected an offer for a default judgement.

Obots believe an attestation is proof of fact and the burden of proof to the contrary is on a challenger after the challenger submits verified, certified and corroborated evidence to the contrary before a challenge can be heard.

The truth is an attestation is assumed to be proof of fact unless it is challenged by a person with sufficient interest. In a GA ballot challenge, a person with a sufficient interest is a registered voter in the candidate’s district. Once a successful challenge to the attestation is made, the burden shifts to the candidate who has attested he/she is qualified.

You’re wrong on burden of proof for candidates accused of ineligibility and you’re attempting to spread misinformation to protect Obama. I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to admit it.

The only time a case on Obamas eligibility went to trial was the administrative hearing in Georgia and Orly proposed to adjudicate the case with her experts and their theories after the Court clearly put the burden of proof on Obama.

I do have a problem with it. It's not true. Now, YOU have a problem with admitting that it's not. And you're trying to overcompensate by babbling.

Youre demanding proof of a written order by Judge Malihi stating the burden of proof was on the candidate, Obama, after the Court denied the candidates motion to quash subpoena.

No, I didn't demand that at all. I said the DECISION does NOT place the burden of proof on Obama. You've tried to come up with previous decisions, but you haven't shown where those decisions were applied to Obama in ANY form or fashion by the court. Why is it so hard to admit that?? It's one thing to say the court didn't follow its own precedents, but you're pretending like it did. Why??

Youre wrong on burden of proof for candidates accused of ineligibility and youre attempting to spread misinformation to protect Obama.

The administrative court already acted to protect Obama. My explanation that the court did NOT put any burden of proof on Obama is a fact. It's not misinformation and it does NOTHING to protect him. What a stupid, stupid thing to suggest. Sounds like you're projecting your own strategy.

All of my federal representatives, and the governor in Idaho, are republicans. I printed out the fake birth certificate, Social Security, and Selective Service registration card info, and mailed it to each of them. All of them said they believe obama is legally qualified to be president. It really scares me that not ONE republican member of congress challenged obama on these. Has congress and the white house been infiltrated? I believe so.

In your original response you referred to “that court” to indicate Judge Malihi was seperate and distinct from the GA Supreme Court. You do not understand there is one judiciary in GA and all Courts accept the decision of the lower Court as a decision made by the entire judiciary, unless an appeal is successfully launched and the lower Court’s decision is overturned.

Conversely, a decision by the GA Supreme Court is precedent for the entire judiciary. Haynes v. Wells is precedent set by a GA Supreme Court decision where the burden of proof is upon the candidate to proof eligiblilty after a candidate attests they are eligible for the office and is successfully challenged by an elector.

When Orly Taitz waived Judge Malihi’s offer of default judgment against defendant Obama for his failure to appear, she waived the Haynes v. Wells precedent for a challenged candidate to prove their eligibility. You’re attempting to protect Obama from the disgrace of not showing up to defend his eligibility when he was ordered to do so.

I know you won’t admit it. You’ll never admit Obama is ineligible because you’re delicate physce can’t handle the truth.

In your original response you referred to that court to indicate Judge Malihi was seperate and distinct from the GA Supreme Court.

Ummm, no, this is some tangent you've invented.

You do not understand there is one judiciary in GA and all Courts accept the decision of the lower Court as a decision made by the entire judiciary, unless an appeal is successfully launched and the lower Courts decision is overturned.

You're missing a step. Malihi is an administrative judge whose ruling serves as an advisory opinion to the secretary of state who is free to either accept or reject that opinion.

Conversely, a decision by the GA Supreme Court is precedent for the entire judiciary. Haynes v. Wells is precedent set by a GA Supreme Court decision where the burden of proof is upon the candidate to proof eligiblilty after a candidate attests they are eligible for the office and is successfully challenged by an elector.

This idea of precedent only means something if you can show how it was actually applied by Malihi in the ballot challenge against Obama. The only thing you've shown is Orly Taitz citing a burden of proof AFTER Malihi gave his decision.

When Orly Taitz waived Judge Malihis offer of default judgment against defendant Obama for his failure to appear, she waived the Haynes v. Wells precedent for a challenged candidate to prove their eligibility.

Then you're arguing against yourself because this means the court did not require a burden of proof on the president. Thanks for admitting it.

Youre attempting to protect Obama from the disgrace of not showing up to defend his eligibility when he was ordered to do so.

Nothing I've posted protects Obama from any alleged "disgrace." And yes, he was advised to show up and present evidence, but he was not ordered to be there.

I know you wont admit it. Youll never admit Obama is ineligible because youre delicate physce cant handle the truth.

Wow, this statement is completely ignorant. You need to read my posts because I've helped show several times how Obama is not and cannot be Constitutionally eligible for office. What I'm not going to do is make an ignorant statement that the ballot challenge in Georgia put the burden of proof on Obama when it clearly did not. Why are you trying to argue that they did??

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.